"That, as you might have guessed, comes at a fairly hefty cost -- $44.7 billion, to be specific -- which makes some similar, but decidedly less speedy systems pale in comparison."
Hang on. This one's supposed to be 310mph and the 'less speedy' one you link to is meant to be... 310mph.
Yeah... I read the linked article and it the read link points to an article saying the 'less speedy' train "has a top speed of more than 500km/h (310mph)" which would make it possibly faster than this one.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Iain @ Jan 1st 2008 2:29PM
"That, as you might have guessed, comes at a fairly hefty cost -- $44.7 billion, to be specific -- which makes some similar, but decidedly less speedy systems pale in comparison."
Hang on.
This one's supposed to be 310mph and the 'less speedy' one you link to is meant to be... 310mph.
Am I the only one confused here?
Reader @ Jan 1st 2008 2:45PM
Yeah... I read the linked article and it the read link points to an article saying the 'less speedy' train "has a top speed of more than 500km/h (310mph)" which would make it possibly faster than this one.
Maybe I'm missing something...